High Court of Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh at Srinagar comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal Wani in the matter of Abdul Majeed Lone v. Union Territory of J&K through P/S Kralgund granted interim bail to an accused booked under sections 8/20 NDPS Act, 1985 on the grounds of health.
Background
The accused was arrested on 01.03.20219 during a Naka laid by the Police and allegedly recovered 1100 grams of Charas-like substance from him resulting in registration of an FIR No. 10/2020 under Sections 8/20 NDPS Act.
A charge sheet was filed upon completion of investigation wherein trial commenced before the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kupwara. An application for bail filed during the course of the trial by the accused before the trial court had been dismissed vide order dated 26.06.2021, whereafter the applicant moved a bail application before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh at Srinagar.
Order of the Court
The court during the pendency of instant bail application, in terms of order dated 17.09.2021 directed the Superintendent of District Jail, Kupwara, to get the applicant medically examined and file a report before this court.
On 06.10.2021, upon coming up of the application for further consideration, counsel for the applicant insisted for grant of interim bail to the applicant on account of the medical report furnished by the Superintendent of the Jail to this court in compliance to order dated 17.09.2021, contending that the applicant is suffering from multiple ailments necessitating his release for availing medical treatment.
In the present Bail Application, Learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. A. M. Dar, Sr. Advocate reiterated the prayer for grant of interim bail to the applicant owing to his ailments for availing necessary medical treatment, whereas, Mr. Sajad Ashraf, GA, opposed the same.
Court took into consideration the medical opinion submitted before it in compliance to order dated 06.10.2021, providing the following while referring to various ailments of the applicant,
“As the above-mentioned diseases are chronic and it took a long period of time symptoms to go away with conservative treatment. The patient is on follow up on monthly basis for health check-ups.”
This court was not oblivious to the rigor provided in the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which mandated adherence to it in the matter of release on bail of an accused involved in the commission of offences referred to therein included for offences involving the commercial quantity of narcotic substance.
It was ordered that the applicant admittedly was involved in the commission of an offence under the Act involving commercial quantity of narcotic substance, yet it was not be lost sight of that the applicant was ailing requiring medical treatment which fact had not and was not even being denied by the non-applicant, as no response in opposition to the medical report was filed by the non-applicant in compliance to order dated 06.10.2021, suggesting no serious objections thereto.
The court relied upon the case of Data Ram Singh v. State of U.P, and Ors. reported in 2018 (3) SCC 22 and said that the settled position of law as evolved by a long line of decisions of Apex court on the subject of bail is that there is no straight-jacket formula or settled rule for exercise discretion. The object of bail is to seek attendance and appearance of the accused at the trial by a reasonable amount of bail. From the abovementioned Judgement, it was quoted that,
“There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do based on the facts and in the circumstances of a case. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this court in Inhuman conditions in 1382 Prisons.
The historical background of the provision for bail has been elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision delivered in Nikesh Tarachand shah vs. Union of India going back to the days of the Magna Carta. In that decision, reference was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab in which it is observed that it was held way back in Nagendra Nath Chakravarti, In that bail is not be withheld as a punishment. Reference was also made to Emporer vs. H. L. Hutchinson wherein it was observed that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The provision for bail is therefore age-old and the liberal interpretation to the provision for bail is almost a century old, going back to colonial days.”
Taking into consideration the Medical report of Accused and Principles laid down in the Judgement stated above, Court granted interim bail on health grounds for a period of three weeks (21 days) from the date of passing of this order enabling him to avail appropriate medical treatment for his ailments. The court said that,
"The grant of the interim bail, however, shall not be construed to be enlargement of the applicant on regular bail upon consideration of the merits of the case. The interim bail herein is granted to the applicant subject to the following conditions:
a) Subject to the furnishing of a personal bond to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount before the Superintendent District Jail, Kupwara.
b) To surrender and deposit a passport within five days from today before the trial court or Superintendent District Jail Kupwara, if not already surrendered.
c) Not to leave the territorial jurisdiction of this court without prior permission.
d) Not to influence directly or indirectly the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence by any mode or method.
e) To face and take the trial before the trial court (during the period of bail) without any fail.
f) To appear before the SHO Police Station, Kupwara, on alternate days during the period of bail at 10:00 am morning.
g) To surrender back before Superintendent District Jail, Kupwara on 02.11.2021."
Case Details
Title: Abdul Majeed Lone v. Union Territory of J & K through P/S Kralgund
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal Wani
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
